Skip to main content

Full text of "Coordination and Bargaining over the Gaussian Interference Channel"

See other formats

Coordination and Bargaining over the Gaussian 

Interference Channel 

Xi Liu and Elza Erkip 

ECE Department, Polytechnic Institute of NYU, Brooklyn, NY 11201 









Abstract — This work considers coordination and bargaining 
between two selfish users over a Gaussian interference channel 
using game theory. The usual information theoretic approach 
assumes full cooperation among users for codebools and rate 
selection. In the scenario investigated here, each selfish user is 
willing to coordinate its actions only when an incentive exists 
and benefits of cooperation are fairly allocated. To improve 
communication rates, the two users are allowed to negotiate for 
the use of a simple Han-Kobayashl type scheme with fixed power 
split and conditions for which users have incentives to cooperate 
are identified. The Nash bargaining solution (NBS) is used as a 
tool to get fair information rates. The operating point is obtained 
as a result of an optimization problem and compared with a 
TDM-based one in the literature. 

I. Introduction 

Interference channel (IC) is a fundamental model in in- 
formation theory for studying interference in communication 
systems. In this model, multiple senders transmit independent 
messages to their corresponding receivers via a common chan- 
nel. The capacity region or the sum-rate capacity for the two- 
user Gaussian IC is only known in special cases such as the 
strong interference case |[I| lE] or the noisy interference case 
|[3l ; the characterization of the capacity region for the general 
case remains an open problem. Recently, it has been shown 
in that a simplified version of a scheme due to Han and 
Kobayashi ||2| results in an achievable rate region that is within 
one bit of the capacity region of the complex Gaussian IC. 
However, any type of Han-Kobayashi (H-K) scheme requires 
full cooperatiorU between the two users through the choice 
of transmission strategy. In practice, users are selfish in the 
sense that they choose a transmission strategy to maximize 
their own rates. They may not have an incentive to comply 
with a certain rule as in the H-K scheme and therefore not all 
rate pairs in an achievable rate region are actually attainable. 
When there is no coordination among the users, interference 
is usually treated as noise, which is information theoretically 
suboptimal in most cases. 

In this paper, we study a scenario where two users operating 
over a Gaussian IC are selfish but willing to coordinate and 

This material is based upon work partially supported by NSF Grant No. 
0635177, by the Center for Advanced Technology in Telecommunications 
(CATT) of Polytechnic Institute of NYU. 

'Throughout the paper, "cooperation" means cooperation for the choice 
of transmission strategy including codebook and rate selection, which is 
different from cooperation in information transmission as in cooperative 

bargain to get good and fair information rates. When users 
have conflicting interests, the problem of achieving efficiency 
and fairness could be formulated as a game-theoretical prob- 
lem. The Gaussian IC was studied using noncooperative game 
theory in Q ||6|, where it was assumed that the receivers treat 
the interference as Gaussian noise. For the related Gaussian 
multiple-access channel (MAC), it was shown in Q that in a 
noncooperative rate game with two selfish users choosing their 
transmission rates independently, all points on the dominant 
face of the capacity region are pure strategy Nash Equilibria 
(NE). However, no single NE is superior to the others, making 
it impossible to single out one particular NE to operate at. 
The authors resorted to a mixed strategy which is inefficient 
in performance. Noncooperative information theoretical games 
were considered by Berry and Tse assuming that each user 
can select any encoding and decoding strategy to maximize 
its own rate and a Nash equilibrium region was characterized 
for a class of deterministic IC's |8|. Extensions were made 
to a symmetric Gaussian IC in ||9|. Another game theoretical 
approach for interfering links is due to Han et al. fTol, where 
the NBS from cooperative game theory was used as a tool to 
develop a fair resource allocation algorithm for uplink multi- 
cell OFDMA systems. Reference (TT] analyzed the NBS over 
the flat and frequency selective fading IC for time or frequency 
division multiplexing (TDM/FDM). The emphasis there was 
on the weak interference case. However, as we will show 
later, for the strong and mixed interference regimes, the NBS 
based on TDM/FDM may not perform very well, due to the 
suboptimality of TDM/FDM in those regimes. 

In this work, assuming each user is selfish but willing to 
coordinate its action when an incentive exists, we formulate 
the interaction between the two users as a bargaining problem. 
We first illustrate how selfish users can bargain for a fair rate 
allocation over a Gaussian MAC. We then propose a two-phase 
mechanism for coordination between users over the Gaussian 
IC. First, the two users negotiate and only if certain incentive 
conditions are satisfied they agree to use a simple H-K type 
scheme with a fixed power split that gives the optimal or close 
to optimal sets of achievable rates |4|. In the second phase, 
the NBS is used as a fairness criterion to obtain a preferred 
operating point over the achievable rate region. For all values 
of channel parameters, we study the incentive conditions for 
users to coordinate their transmissions. We also formulate the 
computation of the NBS over the H-K rate region as a convex 

optimization problem. Results show that the NBS exhibits 
significant rate improvements for both users compared with the 
uncoordinated case. The NBS obtained here can also achieve 
the maximum sum rate of the adopted H-K scheme in most 
cases, which demonstrates its strong efficiency. 

II. System Model 
A. Channel Model 

In this paper, we focus on the two-user standard Gaussian 


Y2 = VbXi +X2 + Z2 


where Xi and Yi represent the input and output of user 
i g {1,2}, respectively, and Zi and Z2 are i.i.d. Gaussian 
with zero mean and unit variance. Receiver i is only interested 
in the message sent by transmitter i. Constants y/a and ^/b 
represent the real- valued channel gains of the interfering links. 
If a > 1 and & > 1, the channel is strong Gaussian IC; if either 
< a < 1 and & > 1, or < 6 < 1 and a > 1, the channel is 
mixed Gaussian IC; if < a < 1 and < 5 < 1, the channel 
is weak Gaussian IC. We assume that transmitter of user i, 
i e {1,2}, is subject to an average power constraint Pi. We 
let SNRi — Pi be the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of user i. 

B. Achievable Rate Region 

The best known inner bound for the two-user Gaussian IC 
is the full H-K achievable region |2|. Even when the input 
distributions in the H-K scheme are restricted to be Gaussian, 
computation of the full H-K region remains difficult due to 
numerous degrees of freedom involved in the problem |12|. 
Therefore we assume users employ Gaussian codebooks with 
equal length codewords and consider a simplified H-K type 
scheme with fixed power split and no time-sharing as in jj. 
Let a G [0, 1] and (3 e [0, 1] denote the fractions of power 
allocated to the private messages (messages only to be decoded 
at intended receivers) of user 1 and user 2 respectively. We 
define T as the collection of all rate pairs (i?i,i?2) G K^ 

■ Pi 

i?i < 01 = C 

R2<h = C 

1 + apP2 


1 + baPi , 
Ri+ R2 <(f>3^ min{03i, (/)32>33} 

.3.=C(^±ifc^Uc^ /3P. 

'/'32 = C 

1 + a/3P2 

1 + baPi 




1 + a/3P2 

C(^±^ii-^^~| (7) 

^33 -i ^^^^^^1^1- 

1 + baPi 

PP2 + b{l - a)Pi 
1 + baPi 


2i?i + i?2 < 04 = C 

Ri + 2R2 < 




Pi + a(l - f3)P2 

1 + a/3P2 
/ /3P2+b(l-a)Pi 

V 1 + baPi 

P2 + 6(1 - a)Pi 
1 + baPi 
aPi + q(1 - (3)P2 

1 + a/3P2 




1 + a/3P2 



1 + baPi 


where C{x) — l/21og2(l + x). The region J^ is a polytope 
and a function of a and /?. We denote the H-K scheme that 
achieves the rate region F by HK(q;, j3). For convenience, we 
also represent J^ in a matrix form as J^ = {R|R > 0, R < 
Ri, and AR < B}, where R = (Pi P2)*, R^ = (0i ^2)*, 


^3 04 05)*, and 

1 2 1 
1 1 2 



Throughout the paper, for any two vectors U and V, we denote 
U > V if and only if U., > V, for alH. U < V, U > V and 
U < V are defined similarly. 

C. Nash Bargaining Solution 

We employ the NBS as a criterion for selecting the desired 
operating point from a given achievable rate region, due to its 
Pareto optimality and fairness. In the following, we briefly 
review the basic concepts and results for the NBS in the 
context of our problem. More details are provided in Section 
III and Section IV. 

We denote by P° the rate user i would expect when both 
treat each other's signals as Gaussian noise. So we have 
^? = C(TTk) ^"'l ^2 = Cij^). We choose R" = 
(Pi P2)* as the disagreement point, i.e., when negotiation 
breaks down, both users can transmit without cooperation at 
rates in R*'. The bargaining problem can be represented by 
the pair {T, R"). We say {T, R°) is essential iff there exists 
at least one allocation R' in T that is strictly better for both 
users than R*^, i.e., the set J^D {R|R > R"} is nonempty. In 
order for both users to have incentives for cooperation, it is 
required that (J^, R") be essential; otherwise, at least one user 
does not have the incentive to bargain. A payoff allocation R 
is said to be Pareto optimal iff there is no other allocation R' 
such that R[ > Ri.^i, and 3i, R[ > Ri. 

This bargaining problem is approached axiomatically by 
Nash L13J. R* = *(J",R0) is said to be an NBS in T for 
R°, if the following axioms are satisfied. 

1) Individual Rationality: $,(J",R°) >R^yi 

2) Feasibility: *(J",Rf') e T 

3) Pareto Optimality: 4>(J^, R") is Pareto optimal. 

4) Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives: For any closed 
convex set tj, if CJ C J" and *(J", R°) e Q, then 
*(g,RO) = *(J-,RO). 

5) Scale Invariance: For any numbers Ai,A2,7i and 72, 
such that Ai > and A2 > 0, if tj = {(AiPi + 

7i,A2i?2 +72)\iRi,R2) e ^} and u = (Aii?? + 
7i,A2i?^ + 72), then ^{g,u) = (Ai$i(J',R") + 


6) Symmetry: If i?? = i?^, and {{R2, Ri)\iRu R2) e 
J"} = J", then $i(J',RO) = $2(-7^,R°)- 

Axioms (4)-(6) are also called axioms of fairness. 
Theorem 1: fT3\ There is a unique solution ^{J-, R°) that 
satisfies all six axioms in the above, and is given by, 


^(J-, R°) = arg max 

1[{R, - i?°) (12) 

The NBS selects the unique allocation that maximizes the 
Nash product in (12) over all feasible individual rational 
allocations. Note that for any essential bargaining problem, 
the Nash point should always satisfy R* > i?f,V«. 

III. Bargaining over the Two-User Gaussian MAC 

Before we move to the Gaussian IC, we first consider 
a Gaussian MAC in which two users send information to 
one common receiver This also forms the foundation for the 
solution of the strong IC. The received signal is given by 

Y = Xi+X2 



where Xi is the input signal of user i and Z is Gaussian noise 
with zero mean and unit variance. Each user has an individual 
average input power constraint Pi. The capacity region C is 
the set of all rate pairs (i?i, R2) such that 


R^<C{Pi), I £{1,2} 
R2<^0 = C{Pi+P2) 


If the two users fully cooperate in codebook and rate selection, 
any point in C is achievable. When there is no coordination 
between users, in the worst case, one user's signal can be 
treated as noise in the decoding of the other user's signal, 
leading to rate i?° = C( ^_^_p' ) for user i. In Q, i?° is 
also called user i's "safe rate". If the two users are selfish but 
willing to coordinate for mutual benefits, they may bargain 
over C to obtain a fair operating point with R" serving as a 
disagreement point. 

Proposition 1: There exists a unique NBS for the bargain- 
ing problem (C,R"), given by R* == (i?J + ^,i?^ + ■\) 
where ^i^ = 4,,-1^1-r^ - 

Proof Maximizing the Nash product in (12) with F 
replaced by C is equivalent to maximizing its logarithm. 
Define /(R) = ln(i?i - R\) + ln(i?2 - Rl), then /(•) : 
C n {R|R > R"} -> R+ is a strictly concave function of 
R. Also note that the constraints in (12), (14) and (15) are 
linear in Ri and R2. So the first order Karush-Kuhn-Tucker 
conditions are necessary and sufficient for optimality [l4l. Let 
L(R, A, ^) denote the Lagrangian where A; > 0, i = 1, 2 and 
/ii > denote the Lagrange multipliers associated with the 

Boundary of MAC 

capacity region 



o NBS 

Fig. 1. The Nash point over the MAC when SNRi = 15dB, SNR2 = 20dB 

constraints, then we have 

L(R, A, ^i) - /(R) + Y, \{R, - Rf) + Aii(<^o - i?i - R2) 

The first-order necessary and sufficient conditions yield 

1 + (A, - Ml) [R* - i?0) = 0; i = 1, 2 (17) 


iR*^Rf)\,^0- A, >0;i = l,2 (18) 

{RI +R*2- 0o)/ii = 0; A^i > (19) 

Since R* > i?° must hold, we have Ai = for i ~ 1,2. Also 

the constraint cjjq — R^ — Ri, > has to be active, i.e., 
Rl + R*2= 00 


Solving (17) and (20), we obtain fn = , -^u_jfu and R* ~ 
i?° + ^,^ = l,2. " ' ' ■ 

In Fig. 1, the capacity region, the disagreement point and the 
NBS obtained using Proposition 1 are illustrated for SNRi = 
15dB and SNR2 == 20dB. Recall that the mixed sti-ategy NE in 
|7| has an average performance equal to the safe rates in R°. 
The NBS point which is the unique fair Pareto-optimal point 
in C is component-wise superior This shows that bargaining 
can improve the rates for both of the selfish users in a MAC. 

IV. Two-User Gaussian IC 

For the IC, the coordination between the two users is done 
in two phases. In phase 1, they negotiate for a simple H-K 
type scheme that has the potential to improve individual rates 
for both. The private message power factors a, /3 in the H- 
K scheme are jointly determined by both users and depend 
on their power constraints P\, P2 and channel parameters 
a and h. If at least one user does not have the incentive to 
cooperate in the sense of Sec II-C, then negotiation breaks 
down; otherwise, they reach an agreement on the use of the 
H-K type scheme with the chosen power split. In phase 2, both 
users bargain for a fair rate pair in the bargaining set which 
is the achievable rate region of the H-K scheme they agreed 
on earlier. This problem can then be formulated as a two-user 
bargaining problem with the feasibility set T and disagreement 
point R". Once a particular rate pair is determined as the 

solution, related codebook information is shared between the 
users so that one user's receiver can decode the other user's 
common message as required by the adopted H-K scheme in 
agreement. If negotiation breaks down, each receiver is not 
provided with the interfering user's codebook. 

A. Conditions for users to have incentives to cooperate 

In this subsection, we discuss the incentive conditions for 
both users to cooperate and how they jointly choose a and 
/? for different interference regimes. In the first phase, the 
two users search for a H-K scheme that could result in a 
rate region containing rate pairs component-wise better than 
R'^. Intuitively, it would be best to have a scheme that could 
achieve the largest rate region that includes R'^. While the 
full H-K achievable region |2| needs to take into account all 
possible power splits and different time-sharing strategies, it is 
computationally infeasible. For tractability, we restrict the two 
users' choices to a simple H-K type scheme with fixed power 
split and no time-sharing. For the weak and mixed interference 
cases, we study incentive conditions for cooperation based on 
the near-optimal power split of |4|. For the strong interference 
case, we set a — (3 ~ 0, which is known to be optimal |1|. 

1) Strong Interference: Suppose a > 1 and b > I, and we 
choose optimal a = f3 — 0. Treating interference as noise 
is suboptimal and R*' always lies inside T. The bargaining 
problem (J^, R°) is essential and hence both users always have 
incentives to cooperate. 

2) Mixed Interference: Without loss of generality, we as- 
sume a < 1 and b > 1. We use the near-optimal power 
splits a ^0 and (3 = min(l/(aP2), 1) |4|. If aPj < 1, the 
interference from user 2 has a smaller effect on user 1 than 
the noise at user I's receiver does. The scheme HK(0, 1) will 
not improve user I's rate and hence user 1 does not have an 
incentive to cooperate using this scheme. But if aP2 > 1 and 
JTl {R > R°} is nonempty when a = and (3 = l/{aP2), 
it is possible to improve both users' rates relative to those in 

Note that aP2 > 1 holds when a > 1/P2- When SNR2 is 
high, this condition is satisfied for most as. This implies that 
in the interference limited regimes, it is very likely that both 
users would have incentives to cooperate. The case for a > 1 
and 6 < 1 can be analyzed similarly. 

3) Weak Interference: Suppose a < 1 and b < 1. 
We use the power splits a — min(l/(6Pi), 1) and (3 — 
min(l/(aP2); 1) [4]. Similar to the mixed case, only if 
aP2 > 1, 6P1 > 1 and J" n {R > R°} is nonempty when 
a — l/(6Pi) and /3 — XjiaP^), both users' rates can be 
improved compared with those in R''. 

Note that as in the mixed case, when both SNR's are 
high, the conditions aP2 > 1 and bP\ > 1 are satisfied for 
most channel gains in the range and it only remains to check 
whether J^ n {R > R'^} is nonempty. 

B. Computing the Nash Bargaining Solution 

After the users agree on an H-K scheme, in phase 2, the 
NBS over the corresponding rate region F is employed as 

the operating point. We concentrate on the case when R° < 
B} and AR° < B so that J"n {R > R"} is nonempty. From 
Section II, we know that, the NBS exists for {F, R°) and is 
unique. It can be computed by optimizing (12). 

Proposition 2: Assuming that R" < R^ and AR° < B, 
there exists a unique NBS R* for the bargaining problem 
{F, YiP), which is characterized as follows: 

R* ^minlRl-R^i 

2_/, = l Mj^ji 

, *e{l,2} (21) 

where jij >0,jG {1, 2, 3} is chosen to satisfy 
(AR* - B)j^ij = 0, AR* < B 

Proof As in the proof of Proposition 1, we use the La- 
grange multiplier method and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker optimality 
conditions. Due to limited space, the proof is omitted. ■ 

V. Illustration of Results 

The achievable rate region of the H-K scheme and the H-K 
NBS are plotted for different values of channel coefficients 
in Fig. 2. For comparison, we also include the TDM region 
and the TDM NBS. The TDM region is given by 7^TDM = 
{R|R = {piC{^) P2C(f ))*, p, > 0,V*, P1 + P2 < 1} 
and the TDM NBS is computed by optimizing (12) with 
F replaced by 7?.tdm- The NBS based on TDM was also 
investigated in 1 11 1 using the unique competitive solution 
studied there as the disagreement point. Since interference 
limited regimes are more of interest here, in these plots, we 
assume both SNR's are high, i.e, SNRi = SNR2 = 20dB. 
In Fig. 2(a), both interfering links are strong, hence HK(0,0) 
is employed. The H-K NBS strictly dominates the TDM one. 
Fig. 2(b) shows an example for mixed interference case when 
a = 0.1 and b ^ 3. Since aP2 = 10 > 1, HK(0,0.1) is 
employed. In this example, although TDM results in some 
rate pairs that are outside the H-K rate region, the H-K NBS 
remains component-wise betteiO than the TDM one. The weak 
interference case when a = 0.2 and 6 = 0.5 is plotted in Fig. 
2(c). Given these parameters, we have aP2 = 20 > 1 and 
bPi = 50 > 1, therefore HK(0.02, 0.05) is used. The H-K 
NBS, though still much better than R'', is slightly worse than 
the TDM one. This is because the TDM rate region contains 
the H-K rate region due to the suboptimality of the simple 
H-K scheme in the weak regime. Note that we do not employ 
time sharing in the chosen H-K scheme. Finally, recall that 
while the TDM rate region does not depend on a and b, since 
R'^ does, the TDM NBS depends on a and b as well. 

We compute the H-K NBS for different ranges of the 
channel gains in Fig. 3. We assume SNRi = SNR2 = 20dB, 
a = 1.5 and b varies from to 3. For all 6's, both users' rates 
in the NBS R* are higher than those in R'^. The improvement 
of each user's rate in R* over the one in R° increases as b 
grows. When b < a, user I's rate in the NBS is less than user 

^Note this may not necessarily liold for all SNR's and the channel gains in 
the range. In other words, for some other parameters, it is possible that one 
user gets a higher rate in the TDM NBS than in the H-K NBS. 





* r" 

^ V 

Boundary ot TDM Region 

''***«^^ •» 


^^-^..^ <* 

tr" 2 



\ \ 
1 ^ 

(a) Strong interference a = 3, b = 5 (b) Mixed interference a = 0.1, 6 = 3 (c) Weak interference a = 0.2, b = 0.5 

Fig. 2. Tlie H-K NBS of tlie Gaussian IC in different interference regimes when SNRi = SNR2 = 20dB. 


N- 2 


1 '■',, 


1 ^^^_^ 

— -"^ 


I 1-5 

K 1 





, — ,R° 




Fig. 3. Rates in the NBS R* and disagreement point R" when SNRi 
SNR2 = 20dB and a = 1.5. 


. 3.8 
' 3.6 

1 \^. 


(H-K NBS) 


(H-K Sum Rate) 



Fig. 4. 
a = 1.5. 

Sum rates in the H-K NBS when SNRi = SNR2 = 20dB and 

2's; however, as b grows beyond a, user I's rate in the NBS 
surpasses user 2's, which is due to the fairness property of 
the NBS. Alternatively we say a strong interfering link can 
give user 1 an advantage in bargaining. In Fig. 4, we plot 
the sum rates for H-K NBS and TDM NBS under the same 
setting as in Fig. 3. For comparison, the maximum sum rate 
of the H-K scheme with the chosen power split is also given. 
The H-K NBS performs better in terms of sum rates than the 
TDM NBS for all 6's except when b is around 1, where the 
performances of the two schemes are similar Moreover, the 
H-K NBS rate pair can achieve the maximum sum rate of the 
H-K scheme used for almost all b's except when b is very small 
(< 0.05), the sum rate of the H-K NBS is relatively lower. 
This demonstrates that the H-K NBS not only provides a fair 
operating point but also maintains a good overall performance. 

VI. Conclusions 

In this paper, we investigated the two-user Gaussian IC, 
under the assumption that the two users are selfish and 
interested in cooperation only when they have incentives to 
do so. We proposed a two-phase mechanism for the two users 
to coordinate, which consists of choosing a simple H-K type 
scheme with Gaussian codebooks and fixed power split in 
phase 1 and bargaining over the achievable rate region to 
obtain a fair operating point in phase 2. We show that the 
proposed mechanism can gain substantial rate improvements 
for both users compared with the uncoordinated case. The 

obtained operating point is also strongly efficient in the sense 
that it can achieve the maximum sum rate of the adopted 
simple H-K type scheme in most cases. 



H. Sato, "The capacity of the Gaussian interference channel under strong 
interference," IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 27, pp. 786-788, Nov. 1981. 

[2] T. S. Han and K. Kobayashi, "A new achievable rate region for the 
interference channel," IEEE Trans. IT, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 49-60, 1981. 

[3] X. Shang, G. Kramer, and B. Chen, "A new outer bound and the noisy- 
interference sum-rate capacity for Gaussian interference channels," IEEE 
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 689-699, 2009. 

[4] R.Etkin, D. Tse, and H. Wang, "Gaussian interference channel capacity 
to within one bit," IEEE Trans. IT, vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 5534-5562, 2008. 

[5] R.Etkin, A. Parekh, and D. Tse, "Spectrum sharing for unlicensed 
bands," IEEE J. Set Areas Commun., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 517-528, 2007. 

[6] E. G. Larsson and E. A. Jorswieck, "Competition versus cooperation on 
the MISO interference channel," IEEE JSAC, vol. 26, no. 7, 2008. 

[7] V. Gajic and B. Rimoldi, "Game theoretic considerations for the Gaus- 
sian multiple access channel," in Proceedings of IEEE ISIT, Toronto, 
Canada, July 2008, pp. 2523-2527. 

[8] R. Berry and D. Tse, "Information theoretic games on interference 
channels," in Proceedings of IEEE ISIT, Toronto, Canada, July 2008. 

[9] , "Information theoiy meets game theory on the interference chan- 
nel," in Proceedings of IEEE ITW, Volos, Greece, June 2009. 
[10] Z. Han, Z. Ji, and K. J. R. Liu, "Fair multiuser channel allocation 
for OFDMA networks using Nash bargaining solutions and coaUtions," 
IEEE Trans. Commun., pp. 1366-1376, Aug. 2005. 
[II] A. Leshem and E. Zehavi, "Cooperative game theory and the Gaussian 
interference channel," IEEE JSAC, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1078-1088, 2008. 
[12] A. S. Motahari and A. K. Khandani, "Capacity bounds for the Gaussian 
interference channel," IEEE Trans. IT, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 620-643, 2009. 
[13] R. B. Myerson, Game Theory. Harvard University Press, 1991. 
[14] D. P. Bertsekas, Nonlinear Programming. Athena Scientific, 1999.